-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour (also known as the 'Kristeller manoeuvre') involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour (also known as the 'Kristeller manoeuvre') involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal, in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal birth and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative birth. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable belt. Fundal pressure is widely used, however methods of its use vary widely. Despite strongly held opinions in favour of and against the use of fundal pressure, there is limited evidence regarding its maternal and neonatal benefits and harms. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if fundal pressure is effective in achieving spontaneous vaginal birth, and preventing prolonged second stage or the need for operative birth, and to explore maternal and neonatal adverse effects related to fundal pressure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure (manual or by inflatable belt) versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more review authors independently assessed potential studies for inclusion and quality. We extracted data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager 5 software and checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials are included in this updated review. Five trials (3057 women) compared manual fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure. Four trials (891 women) compared fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure. It was not possible to blind women and staff to this intervention. We assessed two trials as being at high risk of attrition bias and another at high risk of reporting bias. All other trials were low or unclear for other risk of bias domains. Most of the trials had design limitations. Heterogeneity was high for the majority of outcomes. Manual fundal pressure versus no fundal pressureManual fundal pressure was not associated with changes in: spontaneous vaginal birth within a specified time (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.28; 120 women; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence), instrumental births (RR 3.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 79.65; 197 women; 1 trial), caesarean births (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.27; 197 women; 1 trial), operative birth (average RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.55; 317 women; 2 studies; I² = 43%; Tau² = 0.71; very low-quality evidence), duration of second stage (mean difference (MD) -0.80 minutes, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.06 minutes; 194 women; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), low arterial cord pH in newborn babies (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; 297 women; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 4.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 71.45; 2759 infants; 4 trials; I² = 89%; Tau² = 3.55; very low-quality evidence). More women who received manual fundal pressure had cervical tears than in the control group (RR 4.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.98; 295 women; 1 trial). No neonatal deaths occurred in either of the two studies reporting this outcome (very low-quality evidence). No trial reported the outcome severe maternal morbidity or death. Fundal pressure by inflatable belt versus no fundal pressureFundal pressure by inflatable belt did not reduce the number of women havinginstrumental births (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 52%; Tau² = 0.05) or operative births (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.01; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 78%; Tau² = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity was high for both outcomes. Duration of second stage was reported in two trials, which both showed that inflatable belts shortened duration of labour in nulliparous women (average MD -50.80 minutes, 95% CI -94.85 to -6.74 minutes; 253 women; 2 trials; I² = 97%; Tau² = 975.94; very low-quality evidence). No data on this outcome were available for multiparous women. The inflatable belt did not make any difference to rates of caesarean births (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 70%; Tau² = 0.98), low arterial cord pH in newborn babies (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55; 461 infants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence), or Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68; 500 infants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Third degree perineal tears were increased in the inflatable belt group (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02; 500 women; 1 trial). Spontaneous vaginal birth within a specified time, neonatal death, andsevere maternal morbidity or death were not reported in any trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the beneficial or harmful effects of fundal pressure, either manually or by inflatable belt. Fundal pressure by an inflatable belt during the second stage of labour may shorten duration of second stage for nulliparous women, and lower rates of operative birth. However, existing studies are small and their generalizability is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. There is no evidence on the use of fundal pressure in specific clinical settings such as inability of the mother to bear down due to exhaustion or unconsciousness. There is currently insufficient evidence for the routine use of fundal pressure by any method on women in the second stage of labour. Because of current widespread use of the procedure and the potential for use in settings where other methods of assisted birth are not available, further good quality trials are needed. Further evaluation in other groups of women (such as multiparous women) will also be required. Future research should describe in detail how fundal pressure was applied and consider safety of the unborn baby, perineal outcomes, longer-term maternal and infant outcomes and maternal satisfaction.
Topics: Apgar Score; Cervix Uteri; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Perineum; Pregnancy; Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 28267223
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006067.pub3 -
Urologia Internationalis 2021Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a sporadic, life-threatening, necrotizing infection affecting the perineum, perineal region, and genitals. Hyperbaric oxygenation (HBO)...
INTRODUCTION
Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a sporadic, life-threatening, necrotizing infection affecting the perineum, perineal region, and genitals. Hyperbaric oxygenation (HBO) improves tissue perfusion and promotes angiogenesis and collagen synthesis. Despite these positive effects of HBO, the indication and the effects on outcome as adjunct therapy in FG remain controversial. Consequently, we decided to perform a systematic review to compare the treatment of FG with or without the use of HBO as an adjunct therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the recommendations provided in the Cochrane Handbook of systematic Reviews and the PRISMA reporting guidelines. Due to the paucity of data and a suspected lack of randomized controlled trials, we considered all the available information for this systematic review.
RESULTS
The literature search for primary studies yielded 79 results. Finally, 13 studies were considered, which included a total of 376 patients with FG, of whom 202 received HBO therapy. Five of these studies had a retrospective case-control design. However, these 5 studies included a total of 319 patients; 145 of these patients were treated with adjunct HBO therapy. Overall, this leads to a mortality rate of 16.6% in the HBO group and 25.9% in the non-HBO group. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that despite the risk of bias, HBO has potential as an adjunct in FG treatment, but it is challenging to carry out further studies, mainly due to the rareness of FG and availability of HBO.
Topics: Fournier Gangrene; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation
PubMed: 33285541
DOI: 10.1159/000511615 -
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aug 2019Introduction Birth-related perineal trauma (BPT) is a common consequence of vaginal births. When poorly managed, BPT can result in increased morbidity and mortality due... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Introduction Birth-related perineal trauma (BPT) is a common consequence of vaginal births. When poorly managed, BPT can result in increased morbidity and mortality due to infections, haemorrhage, and incontinence. This review aims to collect data on rates of BPT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACs), and the World Health Organization (WHO) regional databases, from 2004 to 2016. Cross-sectional data on the proportion of vaginal births that resulted in episiotomy, second degree tears or obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) were extracted from studies carried out in LMICs by two independent reviewers. Estimates were meta-analysed using a random effects model; results were presented by type of BPT, parity, and mode of birth. Results Of the 1182 citations reviewed, 74 studies providing data on 334,054 births in 41 countries were included. Five studies reported outcomes of births in the community. In LMICs, the overall rates of BPT were 46% (95% CI 36-55%), 24% (95% CI 17-32%), and 1.4% (95% CI 1.2-1.7%) for episiotomies, second degree tears, and OASI, respectively. Studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to study design and population. The overall reporting quality was inadequate. Discussion Compared to high-income settings, episiotomy rates are high in LMIC medical facilities. There is an urgent need to improve reporting of BPT in LMICs particularly with regards to births taking in community settings.
Topics: Adult; Delivery, Obstetric; Developing Countries; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Parturition; Perineum; Poverty; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 30915627
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-019-02732-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2010Approximately 70% of women will experience perineal trauma following vaginal delivery and will require stitches. This may result in pain, suture removal and superficial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Approximately 70% of women will experience perineal trauma following vaginal delivery and will require stitches. This may result in pain, suture removal and superficial dyspareunia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different suture materials on short- and long-term morbidity following perineal repair.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing different suture materials for perineal repair after vaginal delivery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 trials with 10,171 women; comparisons included: catgut with standard synthetic (nine trials), rapidly absorbing synthetic (two trials), and glycerol impregnated catgut sutures (two trials); and standard synthetic sutures with rapidly absorbing synthetic (five trials) and monofilament sutures (one trial).Compared with catgut, standard synthetic sutures were associated with less pain up to three days after delivery (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.90); and less analgesia up to ten days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87). More women with catgut sutures required resuturing (15/1201) compared with synthetic sutures (3/1201) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.74); while more women with standard synthetic sutures required the removal of unabsorbed suture material (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.24). Comparing standard synthetic with rapidly absorbing sutures, short- and long-term pain were similar; in one trial fewer women with rapidly absorbing sutures reported using analgesics at 10 days (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77). More women in the standard synthetic suture group required suture removal compared with those in the rapidly absorbed group (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). There was no evidence of significant differences between groups for long-term pain (three months after delivery) or for dyspareunia at three, or at six to 12 months. When catgut and glycerol impregnated catgut were compared, results were similar for most outcomes, although the latter was associated with more short-term pain. One trial examining monofilament versus standard polyglycolic sutures found no differences for most outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Catgut may increase short-term pain compared with synthetic sutures. There were few differences between standard and rapidly absorbing synthetic sutures but more women needed standard sutures removing. For other materials, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions. Findings should be interpreted in the context of the related Cochrane review on suturing techniques.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Catgut; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Polyglactin 910; Polyglycolic Acid; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sutures
PubMed: 20556745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000006.pub2 -
International Journal of Surgery... Oct 2017Several procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) exist. These procedures are performed via the abdominal or perineal approach. Perineal procedures... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Several procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) exist. These procedures are performed via the abdominal or perineal approach. Perineal procedures for rectal prolapse involve either resection or suspension and fixation of the rectum. The present review aimed to assess the outcomes of the perineal resectional procedures including Altemeier procedure (AP), Delorme procedure (DP), and perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSR) in the treatment of CRP.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic search of the current literature for the outcomes of perineal resectional procedures for CRP was conducted. Databases queried included PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library. The main outcomes of the review were the rates of recurrence of CRP, improvement in bowel function, and complications.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies involving 2647 (2390 females) patients were included in the review. The mean age of patients was 69.1 years. Recurrence of CRP occurred in 16.6% of patients. The median incidences of recurrence were 11.4% for AP, 14.4% for DP, and 13.9% for PSR. Improvement in fecal incontinence occurred in 61.4% of patients after AP, 69% after DP, and 23.5% after PSR. Complications occurred in 13.2% of patients. The median complication rates after AP, DP and PSR were 11.1%, 8.7%, and 11.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Perineal resectional procedures were followed by a relatively high incidence of recurrence, yet an acceptably low complication rate. Definitive conclusions on the superiority of any procedure cannot be reached due to the significant heterogeneity of the studies.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Perineum; Rectal Prolapse; Recurrence
PubMed: 28890414
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.09.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26370160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub4 -
Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique Et... Feb 2006The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of episiotomy to prevent severe perineal tears, urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence and genital prolapse. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of episiotomy to prevent severe perineal tears, urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence and genital prolapse.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review on Medline database was performed between 1980 and 2005. One hundred seventy seven articles were selected. Trial quality was assessed on the following parameters: design (prospective, randomized, meta-analysis), sample size (>50) and relevant results. Finally, 43 articles were analysed.
RESULTS
The routine use of episiotomy did not prevent severe perineal tears. It decreased the risk of moderate anterior perineal lacerations. The risk of severe perineal tears during episiotomy increased in the following circumstances: primiparity, Asian women, perineal length
CONCLUSION
The routine use of episiotomy to prevent severe perineal tears, urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence and genital prolapse should be abandoned.
Topics: Adult; Episiotomy; Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Muscle Hypotonia; Parity; Pelvic Floor; Perineum; Pregnancy; Rectum; Urinary Incontinence; Uterine Prolapse; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 16495824
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol/acetaminophen for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs, with 16 involving 1132 women randomised to aspirin or placebo (one RCT did not report numbers of women). Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to review meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear due to poor reporting.We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (data from 15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Primary outcomes Aspirin versus placeboMore women who received aspirin experienced adequate pain relief compared with women who received placebo over four to eight hours after administration (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received aspirin were less likely to need additional pain relief over four to eight hours after administration (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in maternal adverse effects over four to eight hours post-administration (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences.There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 600 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.There was no clear difference over four to eight hours after administration between 600 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women).There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. Secondary outcomesNo studies reported on secondary review outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; maternal postpartum depression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence to suggest that single dose aspirin compared with placebo can increase pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy. Very low-quality evidence also suggested that aspirin can reduce the need for additional analgesia, without increasing maternal adverse effects. Evidence was downgraded based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias or both. RCTs excluded breastfeeding women so there is no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding.With international guidance recommending mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth, and exclusively breastfeed for the first six months, the evidence from this review is not applicable to current recommended best practice. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Although formal assessment was beyond the remit of this review, current guidance suggests that other analgesic drugs (including paracetamol) should be considered first for postpartum perineal pain. Such agents are the focus of other reviews in this series on drugs for perineal pain in the early postpartum period. It is considered most likely that if RCTs are conducted in the future they could compare aspirin with other pain relievers. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure high methodological quality, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain, future RCTs could be extended to women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Placebo Effect; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 28181214
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012129.pub2 -
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2016The Anterior Perineal PlanE for ultra-low Anterior Resection of the rectum (APPEAR) technique utilises a perineal incision to facilitate resection of the distal rectum.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The Anterior Perineal PlanE for ultra-low Anterior Resection of the rectum (APPEAR) technique utilises a perineal incision to facilitate resection of the distal rectum. The aim of this study was to review use of the APPEAR technique, assessing patient selection, indications, complications and outcomes, both oncological and functional.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was carried out to identify studies reporting outcomes following rectal resection via an anterior perineal incision, with no limits on year or language. All studies were included. Quality of studies was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS) score.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were identified from 1985 to 2013. 174 patients (102 male), ranging from 21 to 82 years, underwent surgery at eleven centres in seven countries. Maximum experience at one centre is 60 cases. 9 cases were performed for rectal dysplasia, 141 for rectal cancer; 96 resections were R0 (remaining 45 unstated). 14 cases were carried out laparoscopically. 30-day mortality was 2.3% (4 patients); there were 2 further deaths from systemic recurrence. Permanent stoma rate was 8/155 (5%). The most frequent complication was perineal or vaginal fistulation (26 patients): 6 underwent reoperation; 15 healed with conservative management; 5 required a permanent stoma. Functional outcomes were variably reported; median stool frequency was 3/24hrs with average Wexner scores of 5-5.5.
CONCLUSION
In selected patients the APPEAR technique offers avoidance of permanent colostomy with good oncological outcomes. The majority of studies had short follow up periods and longer-term outcomes will need evaluation.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colostomy; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Perineum; Rectal Diseases; Reoperation; Surgical Stomas; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 27500960
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.075 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Maternal pushing during the second stage of labour is an important and indispensable contributor to the involuntary expulsive force developed by uterine contraction.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal pushing during the second stage of labour is an important and indispensable contributor to the involuntary expulsive force developed by uterine contraction. There is no consensus on an ideal strategy to facilitate these expulsive efforts and there are contradictory results about the influence on the mother and fetus.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and possible disadvantages of different kinds of techniques regarding maternal pushing/breathing during the expulsive stage of labour on maternal and fetal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (19 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of pushing/bearing down techniques (type and/or timing) performed during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design and those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
In this updated review, we included 21 studies in total, eight (884 women) comparing spontaneous pushing versus directed pushing, with or without epidural analgesia and 13 (2879 women) comparing delayed pushing versus immediate pushing with epidural analgesia. Our GRADE assessments of evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality; the main reasons for downgrading were study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Overall, the included studies varied in their risk of bias; most were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Comparison 1: types of pushing: spontaneous pushing versus directed pushingThere was no clear difference in the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 10.26 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to 21.64 minutes, six studies, 667 women, random-effects, I² = 81%) (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.66, one study, 320 women) (low-quality evidence), episiotomy (average RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.85, two studies, 420 women, random-effects, I² = 81%), duration of pushing (MD -9.76 minutes, 95% CI -19.54 to 0.02; two studies; 169 women; I² = 88%) (very low-quality evidence), or rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05; five studies; 688 women; I² = 2%) (moderate-quality evidence). For primary neonatal outcomes such as five-minute Apgar score less than seven, there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.43, one study, 320 infants) (very low-quality evidence), and the number of admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.30 to 3.79, two studies, 393 infants) (very low-quality evidence) also showed no clear difference between spontaneous and directed pushing. No data were available on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Comparison 2: timing of pushing: delayed pushing versus immediate pushing (all women with epidural)For the primary maternal outcomes, delayed pushing was associated with an increase of 56 minutes in the duration of the second stage of labour (MD 56.40, 95% CI 42.05 to 70.76; 11 studies; 3049 women; I² = 91%) (very low-quality evidence), but no clear difference in third or 4th degree perineal laceration (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14, seven studies. 2775 women) (moderate-quality evidence) or episiotomy (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04, five studies, 2320 women). Delayed pushing was also associated with a 19-minute decrease in the duration of pushing (MD -19.05, 95% CI -32.27 to -5.83; 11 studies; 2932 women; I² = 95%) (very low-quality evidence) and an increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11, 12 studies, 3114 women) (moderate-quality evidence).For the primary neonatal outcomes, there was no clear difference between groups in admission to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41, three studies, n = 2197) (low-quality evidence) and five-minute Apgar score less than seven (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.00; three studies; 413 infants) (very low-quality evidence). There were no data on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Delayed pushing was associated with a greater incidence of low umbilical cord blood pH (RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.68, 4 studies, 2145 infants) and increased the cost of intrapartum care by CDN$ 68.22 (MD 68.22, 95% CI 55.37, 81.07, one study, 1862 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review is based on 21 included studies of moderate to very low quality of evidence (with evidence mainly downgraded due to study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates).Timing of pushing with epidural is consistent in that delayed pushing leads to a shortening of the actual time pushing and increase of spontaneous vaginal delivery at the expense of an overall longer duration of the second stage of labour and an increased risk of a low umbilical cord pH (based only on one study). Nevertheless, there was no clear difference in serious perineal laceration and episiotomy, and in other neonatal outcomes (admission to neonatal intensive care, five-minute Apgar score less than seven and delivery room resuscitation) between delayed and immediate pushing.Therefore, for the type of pushing, with or without epidural, there is no conclusive evidence to support or refute any specific style as part of routine clinical practice, and in the absence of strong evidence supporting a specific method or timing of pushing, the woman's preference and comfort and clinical context should guide decisions.Further properly well-designed RCTs, addressing clinically important maternal and neonatal outcomes are required to add evidence-based information to the current knowledge. Such trials will provide more complete data to be incorporated into a future update of this review.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Breath Holding; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Stage, Second; Perineum; Pregnancy; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration; Time Factors; Uterine Contraction; Valsalva Maneuver
PubMed: 28349526
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009124.pub3